On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 15:01 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 01:15:29PM -0400, William L. Maltby wrote: > > My question is: is there a scenario where the public key based solution > > is just totally inappropriate? Am I overrating the value of going > > "passwordless"? > > No to both questions. > I use the same thing on all my servers (only keys, no plain-text). That's good to know. So I am not only learning again, but also evaluating properly (at least temporarily)! > > However, there is a 3rd authentication option. The first 2 are: > > - - Password > - - Public Key > > the 3rd being: > > - - Challenge/Response HA! I remember this from before I got cable access. While futilely hoping the telco would get DSL out here in the sticks, I did dial to my ISP. Auth was either PAP or CHAP. IIRC, ISP preferred CHAP and that's what we did (PtoP). > > Challenge/Response authentication include things like S/KEY and > OTPW (One Time PassWord). > > <snip CHAP is pretty darn good explanation> > Rodrigo Barbosa > <snip sig stuff> Thanks Rodrigo, for taking the time! -- Bill
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
